UK Police still thinks photographers are criminals. It would seem.

I did read your posts, and you'll be glad to read that I'm not the type to just quickly read something, scroll down type something out and hit the "reply" button. Such people should be frowned upon and potentially hung. Moving on.

I'm not talking about his behaviour so much as the perception that you and others have displayed of the lad "being a dick" or "a bit of a dick". Its the definition, in that to me, a dick is someone who: is displaying unwarranted behaviour(s) and/or taking unreasonable physical action(s) towards a third party.

The lad did not display unwarranted behaviour based on what happened to him from the get-go, you have said this yourself in the equivalent words. Nor did he partake in unreasonable physical action(s) toward a third party (or parties). Therefore by the definition I have provided, he wasn't a dick or even a bit of a one.

So why do yourself and others persist in calling the lad a dick or even "a bit of a dick"? It is unwarranted and that is being a dick (by using profanity to describe someone's perceived behaviour who can't possibly defend themselves). This is what I have a problem with.

I understood what you meant by being polite, I went to the conclusion that I foreseen with such bullying tactics being employed. And I agree, how one's actions are interpreted is important...but only by those in the first person *at the time* (rather than third person hindsight, which is what we are all operating from). Its not a bad thing that you suggest, being more polite (I believe "reasonable" would be a more accurate term) in fact it leads me on to the next part of my post.

There is one thing I've not seen you, nomix, put forward - and that is the question "how would you have handled it yickle?" which would be a very fair question. And it deserves an answer - so here it comes.

I too would have done things much as you have described already. I would have been Mr Data for as long as possible, and have done in the past to varying degrees of success (which means I have failed too). I would also have tried to come to a compromise or even have a police officer present whilst I partake in my work - knowing I can always issue a complaint later. That being said, should things have turned sour like they did for this lad, I more than likely would have become far more defiant and if I had "slipped", I would make sure the story got to all the media outlets that I could get the story to. Plus I would have at least made the appearance of being reasonable.

But then that's me. And you have your way of doing things too. Would it have made this lad's case stronger or poorer would be arguing in a vacuum in that we have no information coming in to say one way or the other (and of course, we would therefore be unable to come up with an answer). It would be best to leave that until we do get information one way or the other.

Right, I've had my turn, its yours now :)

Regards,

Yickle!
 
And my branding him as a dick must be seen relative to what I define as "dick". :p

A dick can be anything from a 'a bit of a dick' to 'dickish' to the Gordon Brown "Yee BAASSSTARD DICK FUCK!". This bloke is just a bit of a dick. I suppose the fact that I'm Norwegian, and started with the Norwegian language, especially since I'm northern Norwegian, I'm proned to call people "dicks", "idiots", "morons", "stupid" and "thick", and I also swear a lot. The only people I've never called "a dick" is some of my best friends, the King of Norway and FDR. And my editor. At least not when he's in the room.

So it's more semantic than anything else.

He was angry. Understandably angry, but he was angry.

People will react differently. While I understand why you don't like the term "dick", you have to understand the original definition I provided for it. It really isn't what I think is the story or discussion anyway. This is, primarily, about wether or not the police were in the wrong.

They were.

:)
 
What he did was perfectly legal but wasn't common sense, you don't want to give someone in authority on a power trip any leverage. It also doesn't help that because of these news stories there have been journalists doing everything they can to goad police into situations like these for a story. If they stop you under section 44 unlawfully you have every right to make a complaint, any complaints about arrests under section 44 are taken extremely seriously.
 
Because they can, private property is private property. It's very possible that if they asked before they started shooting they would have been allowed to continue, all it takes is a phone call or a chat.
 
It wasn't private property, it was public property. And even if we look away from that particular issue, they still had the right to pohtograph as the head of security had previously confirmed. The security guards acted very unprofessionally, they should at that point had at least a look at the piece of paper he was trying to show them, they wouldn't have looked like assholes, and opened themselves up to a massive law suit that this photographer will probably win as well.

Let me quote from the blog post:

"Ledford had done his homework on this project, having interviewed Miami-Dade Transit head of security Eric J. Muntan who informed him that people had the right to take pictures within the Metrorail station with the exception of commercial photography, which needed prior approval.

Muntan also sent him Miami-Dade County Code 30B-5 (2) which states the following:

Commercial photography or recording. No person, unless authorized in writing by MDTA or the County Manager when appropriate under Section 2-11.14 of this Code, shall take still, motion, or sound motion pictures or sound records or recordings of voices or otherwise for commercial, training or educational purposes, other than news coverage anywhere in the transit system.

There also happens to be an exemption towards students and faculty regarding the ?educational purposes? portion of this code, which is outlined in Miami-Dade County Ordinance Sec. 2-11.14 (2) (iii).

?[n]othing in this section shall require any permit from: (i) Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use; (ii) Employees of print or electronic news media when filming on-going news events. This exception shall not apply to simulations or re-enactments orchestrated by print or electronic news media; or (iii) Students and faculty filming exclusively for educational purposes. ?"

They didn't just call. They called the HEAD OF SECURITY for the Miami-Dade Transit dept. And were told they could photograph freely.
 
Last edited:
Surely the operator of the station owns both the car park and the station itself, only valid ticket holders have the right to be there. Obviously what the security guard said about it being illegal to photograph there is absolute rubbish (commonly uttered rubbish too). Unlike the incident involving the 16 year old over here what the security guard did was legal even if it did contradict what their boss (the head of security) had previously said. The moral of the story to my mind is to get explicit permission in writing.

In other news, the Scotland Yard flashmob yesterday was a great success.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it's not a first ammendment case, as they weren't expelled by the cops. But being barred from entering a public station because of this.. forever, would seem like something you lose over in a US court.
 
So if I have take pictures of land scape or the town centre for college work, which I will. I'll be classed as a crim then? :blink:
 
Nope. You might get harassed by police officers that have their head in their arse, but you are not committing a crime.
 
Hmm. This is a grey area for me. Taking photos ina public place is one thing, but taking photos of kids in uniform is another thing entirely, and I'm not surprised the rozzers were on his back for it. I am very careful where I point my camera because I just don't want the hassle. Saying that I took photos of our local carnival floats with kids on and a police van opposite me, they didn't bat an eyelid.
 
This is where legality and morality clash, I wouldn't personally do it despite the fact that I know full well that it's entirely legal for me to do so.
 
My usual internal thinking when taking a photo of anything outside: "Get out of the waaaaay! Get out of the f***ing way! FFS! I'm trying to take a photo of the incoming TRAIN! NOT YOU! You all have faces only a mother could love! Get out the way and take your ugly with you for God's sake! SHIFT! GRRRRRRRRR!!" *click* "Yay! I got my photo of the train! I got my photo of the train! No people in the way! No people in the way! Weeeeeee!" *does a victory dance*

Same when I take photos of buildings, I don't want people in them! Shoo! Begone peasants!

Regards,

Yickle!
 
saying all UK police would stop you from taking pictures is like saying all US police would gladly tazer your granny.

the few, contained, and condemned cases should not be used to label an entire county's police, that is just alarmism in its purest form.
 
Look at the terrorist. You can tell he's a terrorist and member of al-qaeda. Look at those teeth. It's quite obvious really. Also he has a Nikon. Only terrorists use Nikon. Everyone knows that.

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2010/07/08/jules.2.jpg

(Jules)
 
Last edited:
Matt2000 said:
Hmm. This is a grey area for me. Taking photos ina public place is one thing, but taking photos of kids in uniform is another thing entirely, and I'm not surprised the rozzers were on his back for it. I am very careful where I point my camera because I just don't want the hassle. Saying that I took photos of our local carnival floats with kids on and a police van opposite me, they didn't bat an eyelid.
Click to expand...
IT'S LEGAL!

I spent 80 hours over the last four days documenting everything from artists to people to fights to house fires to arrests to sick people to sleeping people at a music festival this weekend. You know how police in Norway react when you stand one meter from the taking photos of an arrest, a fire, a fight? They don't react. In the case of the fire, they were constructive, worked with me and gave me the space I needed, and I reacted by not being in the way.

That's how police is supposed to act. That's how it should work, and that's what works well. It's not the police's job to question what needs to be photographed, when I'm documenting something photographicly, I document what happens, no matter what happens. It's none of their business. If you're polite like I am, you approach ie. police to get their take on how they wish you to act in sensitive situations (so I don't get in their way), many don't. But it still isn't their job to question how we press photographers do our job. It just isn't, and in a democracy, it can't be.

jmsprovan said:
saying all UK police would stop you from taking pictures is like saying all US police would gladly tazer your granny.
Click to expand...
And all Norwegians go around drinking moonshine. I know it's not an accurate statement, if it was aimed at me. :)

the few, contained, and condemned cases should not be used to label an entire county's police, that is just alarmism in its purest form.
Click to expand...
It does happen quite often. In different constabularies. Not to mention private security guards. It has been a very real problem affecting real people all over the UK for years. Read through the reported cases, there's just a lot of them.

When it happens and keeps happening, it's not just isolated cases, it's a problem with the system. It might get better now, but we'll have to see.

AiR said:
Look at the terrorist. You can tell he's a terrorist and member of al-qaeda. Look at those teeth. It's quite obvious really. Also he has a Nikon. Only terrorists use Nikon. Everyone knows that.

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2010/07/08/jules.2.jpg

(Jules)
Click to expand...
That's true. Didn't know he was a Nikon user, yes, he must be a terrorist.
 
Cobol74 said:
I have never ever had a problem taking pictures out in the street in the UK. I think after the bombs in London in 2005 there is a bit of sensitivity if you look suspicious/furtive but just be up front and if asked to by the Security/Police show them the pic (Assumes you use a digital) I would on no account delete it however. I do not care who asks.


The bloke in the shop selling the bong did ask me not take a pic but that was in Key West, FL. ...
Click to expand...

i havent either, but only because i dont try to take photos in public places. where i used to live the local photogs there often got harrassed in the high street for doing some street photography. it was always a case of the police not having the slightest bit of knowledge of the actual laws on photography. its just a joke...and very likely to do with the fact labour showered them with lots of tick boxes and reports to fill in rather than being you know, actual rational, logically thinking police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top